Woman Behind Roe v. Wade: “I’m Dedicating My Life to Overturning It”

Jun 2012
41,958
15,168
Barsoom
#52
It sounded like one of the most counter factual out there.
That statement will require evidence that James Wilson did not author the necessary and proper clause and that Wilson lied about what he meant.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,168
Barsoom
#54
James Wilson, author of the necessary and proper clause. The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to secure what Wilson wrote:

The gentleman in opposition strongly insists that the general clause at the end of the eighth section gives to Congress a power of legislating generally; but I cannot conceive by what means he will render the words susceptible of that expansion. Can the words, "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers," be capable of giving them general legislative power? I hope that it is not meant to give to Congress merely an illusive show of authority, to deceive themselves or constituents any longer. On the contrary, I trust it is meant that they shall have the power of carrying into effect the laws which they shall make under the powers vested in them by this Constitution.​
Another objection is, "that Congress may borrow money, keep up standing armies, and command the militia." The present Congress possesses the power of borrowing money and of keeping up standing armies. Whether it will be proper at all times to keep up a body of troops, will be a question to be determined by Congress; but I hope the necessity will not subsist at all times. But if it should subsist, where is the gentleman that will say that they ought not to possess the necessary power of keeping them up?​
It is urged, as a general objection to this system, that "the powers of Congress are unlimited and undefined, and that they will be the judges, in all cases, of what is necessary and proper for them to do." To bring this subject to your view, I need do no more than point to the words in the Constitution, beginning at the 8th sect. art. 1st. "The Congress (it says) shall have power," &c. I need not read over the words, but I leave it to every gentleman to say whether the powers are not as accurately and minutely defined, as can be well done on the same subject, in the same language. The old Constitution is as strongly marked on this subject; and even the concluding clause, with which so much fault has been found, gives no more or other powers; nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are limited and defined by the following, "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." It is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried.​
 
Nov 2012
16,940
5,607
Michigan
#55
And as usual...the Trumpanzee falls back on lies/agitprop. Typical. Tell me, Trumpanzee, which "thought crimes" are you talking about?

Strange all those non-problems offend you so much, but forcing a woman to give birth to a rape baby just brings a warm glow to your heart....
All “hate crimes” are thought crimes, duh
 
Likes: Sabcat
Nov 2012
16,940
5,607
Michigan
#56
And as usual...the Trumpanzee falls back on lies/agitprop. Typical. Tell me, Trumpanzee, which "thought crimes" are you talking about?

Strange all those non-problems offend you so much, but forcing a woman to give birth to a rape baby just brings a warm glow to your heart....
I have never proposed forcing a woman to do anything
 
Nov 2005
7,854
2,420
California
#57
All “hate crimes” are thought crimes, duh
No. They really aren't.
There is no "hate crime" in the U.S. that isn't an illegal act without "hate crime" legislation.
If you believe hate crimes make certain "thoughts" a crime, I challenge you to show any such example.


Here is what we know:
McCorvry, in the OP, makes note of her court case.
The case was before the Supreme Court.
The case involved the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law.
The OP is about several things, and the constitutional basis of Roe is one of the topics.
This specious line of topical derailment is the equivalent of:
Jane is talking about her house and how much she hates her kitchen.
The house is red.
Ergo, Jimmyb feels validated in discussing the merits of the color red...
:zany:
 
Dec 2018
677
393
Unionville Indiana
#58
James Wilson, author of the necessary and proper clause. The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to secure what Wilson wrote:

The gentleman in opposition strongly insists that the general clause at the end of the eighth section gives to Congress a power of legislating generally; but I cannot conceive by what means he will render the words susceptible of that expansion. Can the words, "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers," be capable of giving them general legislative power? I hope that it is not meant to give to Congress merely an illusive show of authority, to deceive themselves or constituents any longer. On the contrary, I trust it is meant that they shall have the power of carrying into effect the laws which they shall make under the powers vested in them by this Constitution.​
Another objection is, "that Congress may borrow money, keep up standing armies, and command the militia." The present Congress possesses the power of borrowing money and of keeping up standing armies. Whether it will be proper at all times to keep up a body of troops, will be a question to be determined by Congress; but I hope the necessity will not subsist at all times. But if it should subsist, where is the gentleman that will say that they ought not to possess the necessary power of keeping them up?​
It is urged, as a general objection to this system, that "the powers of Congress are unlimited and undefined, and that they will be the judges, in all cases, of what is necessary and proper for them to do." To bring this subject to your view, I need do no more than point to the words in the Constitution, beginning at the 8th sect. art. 1st. "The Congress (it says) shall have power," &c. I need not read over the words, but I leave it to every gentleman to say whether the powers are not as accurately and minutely defined, as can be well done on the same subject, in the same language. The old Constitution is as strongly marked on this subject; and even the concluding clause, with which so much fault has been found, gives no more or other powers; nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are limited and defined by the following, "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." It is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried.​
You omitted the second part of the sentence, in Sec. 8 in bold font below:

"The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers," and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,168
Barsoom
#59
The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers," and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Wilson explained what his clause means and the Ninth Amendment further clarified the severe limitations of the clause. Posting the clause is not only not a rebuttal. The clause is not cryptic and the plain language limits its power to the enumerated powers of Article I. What is not in Article I is a national bank as a "foregoing power."
 
Dec 2018
677
393
Unionville Indiana
#60
Wilson explained what his clause means and the Ninth Amendment further clarified the severe limitations of the clause. Posting the clause is not only not a rebuttal. The clause is not cryptic and the plain language limits its power to the enumerated powers of Article I. What is not in Article I is a national bank as a "foregoing power."
The 1819 High Court disagreed. End of story.